"Engineers are assessing what allowed the seal to become dislodged to prevent the issue from recurring."
See full article...
See full article...
No fooling: NASA targets April 1 for Artemis II launch to the Moon
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
36
(37
/
-1)
Statistical
Ars Legatus Legionis
The combination of
is just brutal.
NASA engineers fixed the issue on 03/03 but can even try again until 04/01. If on 04/01 the left handed flux capacitor has blown and can only be fixed at the VAB then next launch window is middle of May by the time they get it back, figure out the issue, and fix it.
The Shuttle use to have holds and scrubs all the time. Most people forget this because they view the Shuttle with rose colored glasses of nostalgia. The difference is they could fix most things at the pad and they had a new launch window every day once fixed. So Shuttle would get a scrub on Tuesday and launch on Wednesday or Thursday. Somewhat ironically the SLS program considered a pad service structure but cut it in order to ... <drumroll> ... save money.
- unreliable rocket (finicky? should I say finicky to be nice)
- no ability to do any significant work at the pad
- round trip rollback which takes at last two days
- a six day launch window each month
is just brutal.
NASA engineers fixed the issue on 03/03 but can even try again until 04/01. If on 04/01 the left handed flux capacitor has blown and can only be fixed at the VAB then next launch window is middle of May by the time they get it back, figure out the issue, and fix it.
The Shuttle use to have holds and scrubs all the time. Most people forget this because they view the Shuttle with rose colored glasses of nostalgia. The difference is they could fix most things at the pad and they had a new launch window every day once fixed. So Shuttle would get a scrub on Tuesday and launch on Wednesday or Thursday. Somewhat ironically the SLS program considered a pad service structure but cut it in order to ... <drumroll> ... save money.
Last edited:
Upvote
215
(218
/
-3)
ubercurmudgeon
Ars Praefectus
Shame it's not scheduled for a return date of April 1st. But then the cost of supplying the entire crew of the ship that retrieves them from the ocean with Planet of the Apes masks would've been prohibitive.
Upvote
137
(139
/
-2)
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
Upvote
57
(59
/
-2)
Yes, but the number of issues and differences between Artemis I and II mean there’s an awful lot of stuff being flown / used for the first time on this flight.
Upvote
23
(29
/
-6)
Top of my head it shifts by over 30 hours each time. So if you miss the 1st at 6pm, then the next launch window is the 3rd.
Upvote
58
(58
/
0)
ReadandShare
Ars Centurion
Way back, maybe Nancy Reagan or her astrologist didn't like that date... but nowadays, maybe something to do with our Dear Leader's wishes??
/s
Upvote
-15
(6
/
-21)
Anyone else catch the news about Artemis IV?
No more EUS, no more Mobile Launcher 2.
So we blew at least 2 billion on ML2, maybe as much as 2.7 billion. And $2–3 billion on EUS to date. OUCH
No more EUS, no more Mobile Launcher 2.
So we blew at least 2 billion on ML2, maybe as much as 2.7 billion. And $2–3 billion on EUS to date. OUCH
Upvote
61
(61
/
0)
I'll be curious to see what order these end up launching in: Artemis II, Starship V3 (flight 12), and New Glenn flight 3.
Upvote
46
(47
/
-1)
Who's to say the crew won't have "alien" masks on when they are recovered??
Upvote
26
(29
/
-3)
Ahh ok, for some reason I thought Artemis 1 was just an earth orbit and not full trip round the moon.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
It is necessary to fire the self destruct before the crew escape system to prevent the solid boosters from hitting the crew pod.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
For some that's all it is but others want to pick up where Apollo left off. There is still a lot of work to be done up there if we are serious about lunar science, far more than robots can do on their own.
Upvote
32
(34
/
-2)
IIRC, the load test before that failed. What makes them think it's fixed?
If you've got two thermometers showing different temperatures, you've got no answers.
Upvote
-10
(3
/
-13)
Stephen, you’re a strong writer, and I’ve enjoyed seeing your work alongside Eric’s.
(Edited)
(Edited)
Last edited:
Upvote
-1
(12
/
-13)
It could have been something like that, but the given times don't match that: they are just less than 25 hours apart, but with a 50-hour gap between the Apr 1 and 3 windows.
Upvote
21
(21
/
0)
The moon is moving away from the earth at 4cm a year. By the time Artemis gets there it will be further away than mars.
Upvote
35
(40
/
-5)
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
The stated goal is to stay. Specifically, to build a permanently crewed outpost near the lunar south pole.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
The first WDR failed due to a hydrogen leak at the main stage quick disconnect. This was traced back to a defective seal, which was replaced at the pad, and the leak was then confirmed as eliminated during the second WDR. The cause of the seal failure hasn't been formally or officially confirmed yet, but there's much speculation that the seal was somehow compromised via mechanical stresses (vibration, torsion) during transport of the rocket from the VAB to the pad.
Upvote
17
(18
/
-1)
That has to do with the mission design. A mission to land at one place on the moon would have different launch window, but likely similarly constrained. Scott Manley did a video recently about Apollo's launch windows.
Upvote
-1
(4
/
-5)
Sure, but Artemis 2 has nothing to do with that. The vehicles it tests- SLS and Orion- are expensive and single use. Exactly what you don't want if you want something sustainable.
The only reason not to abandon SLS, aside from the jobs in districts angle, in favor of more sustainable vehicles is that we absolutely have to beat China. In other words, the goal is the same goal as the 1960s, and the results will be the same results (a brief flags and footprints expedition).
Upvote
34
(37
/
-3)
The question regarded the stated goal. Not whether that goal was reasonable, whether the current Congressionally mandated set of hardware is the best way to accomplish that goal, or whether the current mission plans and political winds serve to advance that goal as efficiently as possible.
That said, Congress so far has only funded the SLS through Artemis 5. By the time that flies (NET 2030, IMHO), commercial alternatives ought to be mature enough that further mucking about with SLS will no longer be even pretend-justifiable.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
IIRC the shuttle was also operating under, shall we say - relaxed risk assessment?
Upvote
6
(10
/
-4)
To date, U.S. space exploration – particularly crewed missions – has been controlled by the whims of an increasingly corrupt legislature, the increasingly powerful self-interested billionaire parasites who own it, and an increasingly ignorant electorate whose primary concern in life is Cheetos and Netflix.
Additionally, the stated goals of these missions has far more often than not largely if not entirely self referential. The Aremis II, for example, has no purpose other than proofs of concept and feasibility studies. It's about nothing but itself. So long as this continues, the U.S. space program can fairly be criticized as having no purpose other than its own continuance. If the sole reason for launching a spacecraft is to build a better spacecraft, the whole exercise is a pathological exercise in economic masturbation that has no function beyond the momentary novelty of the sensation, ad infinitum. In short, It's consumerism.
Call me when a group of people launch for orbit, a moon, or a planet, intending to establish a permanent presence. Until then, it's difficult to believe there's anything here beyond pork barrel politics dressed up in cool science fiction outfits. Hot air literally launches rockets but makes no contribution at all to feasible long term goals, and there's little reason to believe the U.S. retains any capability to pursue, much less achieve, long term goals. Certainly not so long as its people submit to Tangerine Palpatine and the Storm Trooper Scumbags are tolerated. Their pernicious ADHD exceeds even that of Wall Street.
Additionally, the stated goals of these missions has far more often than not largely if not entirely self referential. The Aremis II, for example, has no purpose other than proofs of concept and feasibility studies. It's about nothing but itself. So long as this continues, the U.S. space program can fairly be criticized as having no purpose other than its own continuance. If the sole reason for launching a spacecraft is to build a better spacecraft, the whole exercise is a pathological exercise in economic masturbation that has no function beyond the momentary novelty of the sensation, ad infinitum. In short, It's consumerism.
Call me when a group of people launch for orbit, a moon, or a planet, intending to establish a permanent presence. Until then, it's difficult to believe there's anything here beyond pork barrel politics dressed up in cool science fiction outfits. Hot air literally launches rockets but makes no contribution at all to feasible long term goals, and there's little reason to believe the U.S. retains any capability to pursue, much less achieve, long term goals. Certainly not so long as its people submit to Tangerine Palpatine and the Storm Trooper Scumbags are tolerated. Their pernicious ADHD exceeds even that of Wall Street.
Last edited:
Upvote
-13
(12
/
-25)
Why do all the big rockets launch on meme days... first IFT 1 on 4/20 and now this on April Fool's?
(/s)
(/s)
Upvote
2
(6
/
-4)
So wait, do you actually have information that April 1st is the date they're targeting? Because all the information I've seen from Nasa and elsewhere just says "sometime in April", but this article's headline is very specific. Is that just an assumption on your part based on that being the next available date on the calendar of launch windows they put out before the first attempt? Or is there specific information somewhere I haven't seen that says they're currently targeting that date?
Upvote
-3
(4
/
-7)